Authorised representative complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act held maintainable for a corporate payee.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by a bank through its Manager was maintainable because a corporate payee may act only through an authorised representative. Reading Sections 141, 142, 26 and 27 together, the court held that a company or bank can prosecute when the person filing the complaint is duly authorised and competent to bind it. As the Managing Director had authorised the Manager to present the complaint, it was not treated as being filed by an incompetent person, and the challenge to cognizance and process failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed on behalf of a bank by its Manager pursuant to authorisation from the Managing Director, was maintainable.

Analysis: A complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, must be made by the payee or holder in due course. Where the payee is a corporate body, it can act only through an authorised person. The Court read Sections 141, 142, 26 and 27 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 together and held that a company or bank may prosecute through a person whose acts are binding on it and who is duly authorised to represent it. Since the Managing Director had authorised the Manager to file the complaint, the complaint could not be treated as having been presented by an incompetent person.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the challenge to cognizance and process failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate payee may institute a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 through a duly authorised representative whose authority is sufficient to bind the company.

---